![]() |
I think it was a decent showing for both sides.
For all the spin that Obama isn't a good debater, my expectations of him were pretty high and he didn't seem to be as "on" as he is during a straight speech. For all the spin that McCain is a master debater (snicker), my expectations of him were pretty low, but he did a very good job IMO. While my overall impressions were that the debate last night was pretty much as wash, John McCain impressed me as the person who would make the better legislator, Barack Obama impressed me as the person who would make the better chief executive. |
Staunch Republican here...Obama won...plain as day. You can not overestimate what I call "calm command". 80-85% of the people have already made up their mind. If I'm a trully neutral voter watching that last night, there's no way I wouldn't go with Obama after that viewing.
I think McCain has a strong dislike for Obama and that's why he doesn't look at him. Plain and simple, he doesn't like him, doesn't trust him, and doesn't want to see him be president. I'm sure he also feels as any multi-term senator would having to debate a "kid" who has barely seen the senate floor compared to McCain. I must say, I'm not a huge fan of McCain but the thought of Obama being president, with a democratic congress, scares me to no end. America will take its first massive strides to becoming a socialist nation. (not that it's not taking small strides already) |
Side bar, Free Market Capitalism works until it doesnt. than the shit hits the fan. I love seeing the new Republican 'bailout' talk where they defend the new plan they have as being based in Capitalism. Here's an education for ya lady...if you want free market capitalism, pass nothing this weekend or next week, and see what's left in a month when the 'market' fixes itself. That'll teach ya.
|
Hmm, I thought the reason that McCain didn't look at Obama directly on is that it would be viewed as too aggressive. I have to think if McCain stared down Obama at every argument, there would be a ton of people bringing intimidation (even some bringing up race). While I can see why McCain got dinged a bit for not looking Obama in the eye on every argument, I think he had to be real careful here and it was better to be on the side of talking directly to the "American people" (ie camera) than looking like a bully against Obama.
I also take a completely different approach to these debates. IMO, Obama needed to do very well on foreign policy (just like McCain needs to do real well on the economy). These are the areas that people who are undecided aren't comfortable with and each candidate needs to better than expectation to show they can handle it. I don't think anyone who was uncomfortable with Obama dealing with Foreign Policy feels any better about that after the debate. Same goes for McCain in the economic debate. If he just goes out there on the defensive and simply blocks Obama's shots, he won't convince undecideds that he can handle the economy. The elephant in the room may be the fact that foreign policy may not be that important to people in this election with the uncertainty around the economy. So, even if McCain had a knockout (and I would say it's closer to a win via the scorecard), I really think this climate is helping Obama and he's still in the catbird seat looking forward. |
Quote:
Well apparently more than one poll this morning is saying that not only am I wrong that McCain won last night, but that youre wrong about the fence sitters especially. It's ok to be wrong. Quote:
Well the only thing ill say is I was confused about the 'freeze' comment but got that cleared up. I wonder if other people were confused by it and wont get it cleared up. shrug. |
From my wife, an undecided voter who watched the debate last night:
Obama had better priorities, but his plans (what few he'd discuss beyond "I have a plan") didn't feel like the right way to accomplish them. McCain is MUCH better for our national security than Obama. |
Quote:
Eisenhower's second speech, noted here amongst others, simply said: "Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone." I believe Eisenhower probably expected to be asked to resign if D-Day failed, but this was not, technically, a resignation at this time. However, Eisenhower took accountability, which I think was McCain's point. The fact that McCain got some of the details wrong is small potatoes given the outright lies elsewhere in his campaign. |
Quote:
I already had the previous post open in another tab to make this exact point. The problem with Dems getting giddy over the Palin-Biden debate is that her expectations are in the crapper as it is. If she does well, or even ok, the McCain camp should just let that go as her meeting America and then never let her out except on the stump the rest of the election. SI |
Quote:
Flasch should also point out the out-right lie in Obama's answers. He said that he never said he'd meet with the president of Iran without pre-conditions, but that is exactly what he said a year ago. Even his camp admitted it was a mistake at the time (that there would have lower level talks first). He then said Kissinger agreed with Obama's stance of President level talks, which is false. Kissinger clearly stated he was Secretary of State level talks. I personally don't think either of these (McCain's or Obama's) "mistakes" or "spins" are a big deal, but they both were completely false. |
Speaking of managing expectations, the Obama camp did a really good job managing them coming into the debate. For the most part, there wasn't much chatter for the last few weeks but I heard whispers about how Obama is a better speaker, would win, etc. But then the last couple of days, this whole "Foreign policy is McCain's strong point" meme came up and it changed the dynamic so that a tie (which, for all intents and purposes it was- GOP thinks their guy won, Dems are split but the polls show a slight Obama win) goes to Obama and nothing really changes.
SI |
Quote:
Sure. If she doesn't completely scrub it, it will be a win. A worst-case senario for the Dems is she's bad, but not that bad. If the press then plays up how awefull they thought she was (and they will, because they are very angry about lack of access), it will probably play right to the "picking on her" idea. It will make her a even more sympathetic figure ("Look at liberal media attacking one of us!"). |
Quote:
Thanks for the laugh on a Saturday morning. :) |
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate1.pdf
These numbers aren't good for McCain among undecideds. Obama prepared to be President jumped from 44 pre debate to 60 post debate. Which candidate understands your needs is 79% Obama and 41% McCain post debate. McCain has an 8 point lead on who would do better in Iraq, but Obama has a 24 point lead on the economy. Rasmussen has Obama increasing his lead to 50-44. The first day the rolling average will count all post debate polling is Tuesday. |
Quote:
There will be a small percentage of voters who cast their ballot for McCain based solely on this. It's a given that the democrats will retain (and almost surely increase) their majority in the house and senate. The thought of Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi controlling all of the executive and legislative branches of government will be enough to win McCain some votes, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome. |
Quote:
:( |
Quote:
I think that they ALL are. I didnt know the Kissinger statement was wrong or a lie, until you just said it....so that is not a good thing and Obama should release a qualification today IMO. Obama, already stated his clarification of the Iran thing so McCain bringing it up as if it wasn't qualified is disingenuous. |
Quote:
Actually, I'm starting to think that might be the best thing that could happen. |
Quote:
Then we'll get what we deserve for failing to prevent it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And Im starting to think that people who think that way dont realize how 'bad' 'bad' really is. |
Quote:
So why encourage a repeat of a one-party government? |
Canada sure is looking nice these days. And I like the snow!
|
Quote:
{shrug} The more I see the more I lean toward believing that the actual impact of not bailing out this incompetence is being overstated by a staggering exponent. Next thing I expect them to tell us is that if the gazillion dollars isn't approved five minutes ago then we'll see cats & dogs living together. And to cut right down to it, it's starting to smell more & more like a set of rich politicians (on both sides of the aisle) looking to save the bacon of some incredibly rich cronies who fucked up royally. |
Quote:
All? You need to take a deep breath. Sometimes, these things are honest mistakes (as when Obama agree to unqualified talks with Iran in the Dem debate. I don't think he complete understood what he was agreeing to at that point). It could be that McCain thought there was a resignation offered, but wasn't, and could be that Obama thought Kissinger said Presidential level talks when he said SOS level (which he clearly did). If you expect perfection from everyone, you are always going to be disappointed. |
I still can't stand either VP. I really dislike Palin.
I thought Obama and McCain did really well. I actually feel pretty good about either choice right now. I don't think I ever felt that way. I agreed with both of them on some issues. I think for the first time in a while, either choice might not be so bad. |
Quote:
I'm with you. I'm not scared of McCain (esp. since he'll be dealing with a Dem congress), but I would prefer Obama for a number of reasons. I wish we had McCain of 2000, and not Neo-Con McCain of the last 8 years. |
Quote:
Fact check for reference. "Our landings...have failed...and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attached to the attempt it is mine alone." -General Eisenhower The Victors, Stephen Ambrose, Page 74 |
Quote:
exactly, thanks. He didnt say anything about resigning. FDR also didnt go on TV during the Depression. Small misses but still irritates me because they'll (both sides) not go on TV or put out in statements regarding corrections. Maybe I'm too much of a stickler, I get it, but it still chafes. Same thing Obama's Kissinger rhetoric. He should come out and release a statement clarifying. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So you are suggesting Eisenhower was holding out hope for a firing instead of resigning after publishing such a letter? |
Quote:
I see a lot of Bill Clinton in him and think that he would be OK. I would prefer McCain/Palin, but I can't really think of one substantive area where the country will be much different if the other was in power. I think McCain will handle some of the Iran/North Korea/Russia things a little better and that Obama will be more focused on economic issues. I don't think either will change a thing in Iraq (we'll leave in 2-3 years under both) and both will do a solid job on Afghanistan. I wasn't real thrilled with Gore or Kerry for many reasons, but I think it's different with Obama. I started out not liking a lot of his policies, but the more time passes, the more he's kind of inching over to my perspective on some issues. So, I'm a little with Grant Dawg and Astro in that I think we will be fine either way. Now, I will still take the conservative (esp fiscal) stance in this thread and be pro-McCain - don't get me wrong. But I have no dread or fear of the opposing candidate winning. |
Quote:
A lot of it will depend upon Congress asserting its influence on a new president whose ties helped propelled him to office. Obama will be able to dictate some bills but he will also have to go along with bills that will be given to him by Congress. He is not going to veto anything that may contradict any of the views stated above. But in the end, we'll still be ok regardless of who is president, we always have been throughout our (once we got the Civil War thing out of the way). |
Quote:
you cant know what he intended, perhaps neither, unless he says it outright, just like people cant intend to know what Palin meant by her speeches about "Gods war." You cant use assumption to provide an out on one side and then use assumption to argue against the other. Set a precedent and stick to it (and I know it wasnt you but others in this thread argued that you cant say she meant one thing or another when she said that because she meant something else). |
McCain is a fighter on the ropes. He didn't win the round but he didn't get KO'ed either. It's been a tough week for him, so living to fight another day isn't the worst outcome in the world.
Re: Palin, at first I was also thinking that if she managed to stay upright and not urinate on the moderator, her performance would exceed expectations. But then again, we thought that about the Couric interview too. Anything could happen in that one. All we know is that the Republicans try to frame any attack Biden makes as sexism, and it will work for a lot of voters. |
Quote:
We already have one party government!!!!! :mad: |
Quote:
I'm wondering if this theoretical $250B bailout isn't just a pile of crap, too. It's not like Paulson and Bernake haven't known about this for a few months. So, they probably have been coming up with this plan for a while. They shot for the moon with "$700B and blank check" and I bet "$250B and minor congressional checks and balances" looks just fine as a fallback point. It's something to the effect of "I want a billion dollars for this piece of lint" "It must be worth something, how about a million" "Great! (heh, I just sold a piece of lint for a million dollars)" "Great! (heh, I just bought something for a billion dollars for a million)" Again, after reading about the way Sweden dealt with an almost identical situation tells me we should something very similar. Also, as an aside for the economics debate, McCain's going to have to go stronger on something more than earmarks. Next to $700B, $16B is such a minuscule amount, we're starting to get desensitized to numbers that "small". SI |
Quote:
Don't sweat it, scolding me for something I didn't say is okay. I'm fairly predictable. :) |
Quote:
The problem with Republicans and Democrats joining hands is that now nobody can believe anybody. |
Quote:
I definitely dont view anything I say as scolding but perhaps that word means something less harsh than I think it means. |
Quote:
I should've added a smiley to my post. :) |
This is pretty chilling:
Quote:
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1 |
Say wha? They realize that Obama is a public figure and thus whatever false statement must be proven to be made maliciously, right?
Or.. they just don't care about the 1st Amendment (which could be the case). |
Yeah, I can't imagine this going over well if it were two prosecutors in Mississippi doing the same regarding McCain. You would think the ACLU would come out against it. Yet, there's nothing on their site and no PRs on it. But, I guess civil liberties are only worth protecting when they involve people they agree with using the first amendment.
|
The story came out Friday... give 'em time.
|
After all:
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech Quote:
|
Quote:
+1 I'm pretty sure they don't work weekends. Arles - are you going to eat your words when the ACLU does step up in this case? Or are you going to try to spin it like they stepped up reluctantly because of some pressure or whatever? |
I will give the ACLU a ton of credit if they come out against this action in St. Louis. Here's hoping we hear from them early next week.
|
Quote:
Well, I do hate 527's so perhaps they do deserve to be burned, on both sides. However, this is ridiculous. |
Quote:
Nice. |
Quote:
The video had nothing about libel charges. Is there a source for that? |
For anyone who cares and didn't see it the SNL skit Tina fEY AS palin again getting interviewed by Kouric . Funny stuff and fairly accaurate.
linl: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_129956.html |
Quote:
Plus, here's the tagline on the video clip I posted: Quote:
|
Well that obviously will not happen. No one, left or right (i hope) would stand for that in either campaign. I'd love to see who in the campaign asked for that.
Where was the decrying though when W did things that we're executed and "nazi-esque"...For another thread I know but I'd love to have seen you (and you may have) skewering their tamping down of civil liberties. either way, both are bad and wrong. |
Quote:
If that happens I'm with you, but I haven't seen anything that clarifies what these people are going to do. |
Quote:
Yes, though I disagree with these type of tactics I find it ironic how Republicans are bitching about this and alot of dirty polictical tactics" the Dems 527s have started using since the Republican propaganada machine were totally relying that crap especially in the Bush Kerry election. Too funny.:lol: |
The Missouri Governor released a statement:
Quote:
|
Even if no charges are filed against anyone, the intent on intimidation is set. If a group composed of two state CAs, a sheriff and other law enforcement come out and state they will "take action" on people who run ads against Obama - the damage is done. I doubt they would be stupid enough to ever file charges (esp now that all this has come out), but their attempt at intimidation is clear. It's one thing for a group of citizens to do this (I still think it's seedy), but it's a whole other thing for active state attorneys and law enforcement to be part of it.
You'll never read about it in the NY Times or Washington Post, but it's a terrible political move by Obama supporters in Missouri. |
Too bad you weren't in this big an outrage over McCain supporters using intimidation and questionable tactics to dissuade voting from people who were undergoing foreclosure. But hey, you win because you invoked the nazis.
|
its crap and wont fly....
You didnt comment on my statement about W's similar intimidation maneuvers. |
I'm not a fan of any kind of political intimidation, so if W did it I think it's crap as well. What's crazy in this case is that it involves actual state attorneys, sheriffs and law enforcement. That's the unbelievable part.
|
Quote:
|
You guys have got to be fucking kidding me. That video was such a hatchet job. There was not one thing in the statement by either person that supports what the reporter was claiming. Maybe we should wait and see if there is a shred of evidence supporting what some random local reporter says before yelling at the ACLU or anyone else to respond. They also haven't responded to the GOP attempts to prevent foreclosed people from voting in Michigan.
A truth squad? Sounds like a rapid response operation to me. If you don't think there are GOP DA's and Sheriffs working on McCain's campaign in other localities, then you're just pretending to have a realistic discussion. |
Quote:
Looks like I don't have a monopoly on questionable debate tactics. |
Well, I guess I was wrong in being upset about these tactics. I fully expect when someone posts the yearly "minorites were intimidated by law enforcement" story on election day to see those from left here use these same arguments:
1. Hey, other areas have used intimidation before so it's no big deal. 2. The other side has done some intimidation on other states, so lay off those intimidating voters. 3. This story is a hatchet job, you can't point me to an exact television interview with people admitting they intimidated voters, so it can't have happened. |
So you don't have a real response to what I said? Okay.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. The person being a state prosecutor. 2. The person going on TV news and saying they will "take action" against those giving dissent. |
Quote:
as opposed to the Feds, Army and DOD? and not once did I say what your saying is ok for the Obama campaign nor the officials in Mizzou to do. |
Eh, I didn't say to lay off the Missouri police, but until there's some legit proof that something like this is really going, I'm going to reserve judgment. If it is going on, then it's more stupid than it is shady since everyone knows it won't fly. I was merely poking fun at your sudden "outrage" over one side's potentially shady tactics and invoking nazis when the other side is equally guilty. Partisan games are fun though. I wish Ron Paul had won just for fun.
|
Again, the entire initial outrage from me is based on the state attorney saying will "take action" if someone posts lies against Obama. If that comment wasn't made, this wouldn't be a big deal, IMO.
|
I thought getting pissed about comments was reserved for me ;)
|
Quote:
See, in that clip, no where does either of the people interviewed say "take action". If you have a different clip where that happens, then by all means please link us to it. The only comment I see is "respond to" and I hardly think that's the totalitarian threat you're trying to make it sound like. |
But they are like nazis!!11!1
|
There's a reason that St. Louis is the laughing stock of Missouri in every election. Most Missouri residents don't even bother to act shocked when another election controversy comes out of that city. There's a reason that the city's actually LOSING residents.
|
Quote:
Plus they seem to have shitty local news. |
Quote:
Shockingly, St Louis is urban, the rest of Missouri is generally rural. There's a reason why those country folks don't particularly care for the city folks. If you look at the breakdown, you essentially have the Dems dominating in St Louis, with the rest of the state generally leaning GOP. |
The nerve of reporters, asking politicians for their positions on national security issues and expecting that they're being given actual answers!
Link: McCain retracts Palin's Pakistan comments Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm specifically looking for something that isn't a perfectly reasonable action by a seated president, especially something that was a departure from precedent. |
Quote:
The second statement leaves it completely open to subjection as to whether or not it meets your threshold so actually googling and citing stuff is a fruitless endeavor. |
Quote:
Realistically the first part, the "perfectly reasonable action by a seated president" that you should have taken me to task for. It wasn't reasonable by a long shot. I'd still like to think you wouldn't want to hold W accountable for something that previous presidents would do. Cite away. I don't need any stinking links. Just looking to see W using public servants to intimidate voters. |
Arles statement was:
Quote:
so my statement wasnt confined to intimidation of voters themselves. The free speech portion is easy, see CIA agent outing sic Scooter Libby (Edit to add that Im sure you'll disagree as to the meaning of this event or it's intimidating implications hence proving my point about fruitlessness). |
Quote:
That wasn't intimidation. That was retribution, along with a healthy side of "attempt to discredit". Any intimidation in that debacle was tertiary at best. Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA employee was exposed by a leak to the press. That is a far cry from using the "Feds", "Army", or "DoD" to intimidate people that shouldn't be intimidated. I'm not stating that W hasn't stooped to such tactics. I'm just saying that if you're going to make that kind of assertion, you should be able to back it up with an example. |
and I feel I clearly did (and knew ahead of time you'd disagree hence my lack of effort to push the ball forward) in that they intimidated anyone else who'd be thinking about 'speaking out' or face the same consequences or similar. This is just one quick example but Ill skip searching for more since it is a fruitless effort to attempt to convince you otherwise, no offense.
EDIT to add: me being unable to convince you isnt a reflection of my lack of respect for you since I think youre civil but I also am guessing you showed your hand at the beginning of this line of talk. |
Quote:
Flasch. Come on. "DoD", "Army", "Feds". You made the allegation. To live up to your standard of everyone standing behind the letter of their statements, you need to be able to pony up some examples. Three would be nice, one for each. Heck you cited three pretty specific entities that "W" used to intimidate. I'd think that you had examples in mind when you did so. Even if they aren't convincing to me, you should be able to cite them. Frankly I didn't put much stock into your ability to produce examples that would convince me when I asked for them, but I figured you wouldn't make such an allegation without having something substantive from your perspective to support it. Now, I'm not so sure you weren't just making an unsubstantiated statement, counting on W's unpopularity to boost the credibility. All in all that isn't very different from playing the Nazi "card". You played the "W" card. So forget about convincing me, just give examples to support your allegation. |
Quote:
No offense taken... Hey wait a minute. It isn't a reflection of your lack of respect of me? Are you saying that you don't respect me, but you want to hide it from me?;) Back ot No offense taken. |
it's early but did you just compare the "W" card to the "Nazi"' card as somewhat even? Im jewish, y'know.
In all honesty Glen, I truly view it as a waste of time. I could find what IMO are the perfect examples and you'll shoot them down (as you did above) as not being good examples or being an example of something else. Hmmmm, perhaps Im evolving from this thread and learning what is worth effort or stress and what isn't. Doubtful, but I know that whatever I 'prove' you'll say proves diddly squat. |
Polls?
Gallup Tracking: Obama 50, McCain 42 Rasmussen Tracking: Obama 50, McCain 44 The interesting in both (well, aside from the gap) is that Obama is at 50%. |
Quote:
So when did a population center on the west end of the state of just under 2M people become rural? Kansas City is actually the largest city in the state of Missouri, though if you add in the subarbs, St. Louis gets the nod as largest metro area. Every election, Missouri residents get to hear about the racism going on when the inner city districts close down the polls with people waiting to vote still in line, despite the fact that they had ALL DAY to go down and vote when there were no lines. At some point, people have to realize that the polls are open 14 hours for a reason and it's not so they can bitch when they show up after 8:00 PM and wonder why the doors are closed. |
Well, people do have to work.
And poor folks, generally, have more of a difficulty getting out of work in order to go vote. |
Quote:
So I hear........EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. Anymore, Jesse Jackson just sets up a press release office in advance and starts bitching about people being closed out long before the polls even close. It's a time-honored ritual of the Democrat machine in St. Louis. |
Well in all honesty they should open the polls from 12:01 to 11:59 but whatever.
|
Quote:
But if you did that, you'd have to arrange nap times for all the 60+ yr. old volunteers. All the snoring and teeth in drinking glasses would likely hinder my ability to vote. |
Three day weekend voting FTW.
|
GW/Battleground tracking has McCain up 48-46. I really wish this poll released their internals.
|
Quote:
You're missing an obvious hint..... Quote:
;) |
Quote:
Maybe because its true every single election. Should be a federal holiday, really. |
Quote:
There's already laws on the books that require that an employer has to allow its employees to vote. We don't need any more laws where laws already exist. Just enforce the laws that are already applicable. It varies from state to state, but the right is there in one form or another in all states. http://www.hrtools.com/legal_complia...jury_duty.aspx Quote:
|
Is Missouri an 'at-will' state? Because, you know, while they may not fire someone for taking time off to vote... they could "find" another reason.
|
Quote:
Yes, it is an 'at will' state, though Missouri is a really bad place to 'find' another reason when it comes to voting. Missouri, since it is a bellweather and battleground state, has lawyers from both parties along with union lawyers absolutely everywhere for a few weeks on either side of the election day. There's literally several hundred lawyers on the ground on election day in St. Louis alone. The lawyers for both parties let the voting public in KC and STL know well in advance exactly who to call in these instances, and they do call in droves. I can't remember the last presidential election where there hasn't been multiple emergency court rulings on election day in the state of Missouri. It's chaos, but it's always fun to watch. FWIW......I mentioned earlier in this thread that Missouri is the best bellweather state in the nation (last time the losing candidate won Missouri was 1900). McCain still holds a slight lead in Missouri, but the lead is shrinking. Should be heartening news for Obama supporters. |
yeah cuz while youre having to sue your former employer in a case you very likely could not win, the bills get paid by....... ...... ...... hmmm, maybe it should be federal holiday. It's not really a law MBBF so we wouldnt have to worry about *more* regulation.
|
Quote:
I'd be interested in hearing about the massive number of people who come to work every day and do not abuse leave policy who were fired. In my experience in management, the vast majority of people who are fired are people who abuse leave policies and are gone from their job more than they should be. People who take an hour to vote on election day don't get fired, especially in Missouri given the scrutiny that our state receives and the possibility of pro bono party lawyers breathing down their neck. I don't think that a federal holiday is a bad idea at all. Toss out Columbus Day and move the free day to the first Tuesday of November. But from what I've seen in my home state, I believe the voting scandals to be extremely overexaggerated. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.